Why do the catholics preach a false gospel?

[Composer]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

There is a difference between Paul etc. not being aware of certain later claims and their outright denial of those claims. The earliest Christians believed in monotheism. So does the Catholic Church today. The Trinity concept is an elaboration intended to resolve various difficulties that would otherwise plague Christian theology. Remember that the Catholic Church does not hold to sola scriptura. Not all religious truths are found in the scriptures. There are also tradition and ongoing theological investigation. Read what Newman said again and you will see this.

If you wish to debate whether the Trinity is a sound concept, there are already several threads on that elsewhere. But it is not the case that the earliest Christians contradicted the idea of the Trinity. In the view of the Catholic Church, they simply did not know about it yet.

.

[Composer]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

There is a difference between Paul etc. not being aware of certain later claims and their outright denial of those claims. The earliest Christians believed in monotheism. So does the Catholic Church today. The Trinity concept is an elaboration intended to resolve various difficulties that would otherwise plague Christian theology. Remember that the Catholic Church does not hold to sola scriptura. Not all religious truths are found in the scriptures. There are also tradition and ongoing theological investigation. Read what Newman said again and you will see this.

If you wish to debate whether the Trinity is a sound concept, there are already several threads on that elsewhere. But it is not the case that the earliest Christians contradicted the idea of the Trinity. In the view of the Catholic Church, they simply did not know about it yet.

.

Of course the trinity is a concept, as is ALL discussions about the literal existence of ANY god or its / their alleged make up and associated ideologies based upon nothing more than Story books concocted by some men and their legitimate evidence otherwise = zero!

Of course no one could contradict a concept that wasn't even conceptualised yet, however, had that concept been around, it would have been or was certainly rejected and the evidence confirming that readily available?

e.g -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

&

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. (p. 160)

In no way is Paul, still a good Jew (although a Christian one), assuming that Jesus was somehow a divine god second only to YHWH. Yes, Jesus was exalted and had the title “Lord� conferred on him by God. But Jesus was a man who, in Jewish context, had become the Messiah. He was still distinct and inferior to YHWH. When John wrote his almost-Gnostic Gospel almost a half-century later, his use of the “Word� as a pre-existent form is used within Jewish context as well—the same context he used for words like glory, spirit, divine wisdom, and others. “When Paul and John spoke about Jesus as though he had some kind of pre-existent life, they were not suggesting that he was a second divine ‘person’ in the later Trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus had transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the ‘power’ and ‘wisdom’ that he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed ‘what there was from the beginning.’�35

The Jews were absolute monotheists. So was Paul. The Jewish Messiah is not a divine figure. The Messiah would be an ordinary human being that would do privileged “God-things.� The Son of God was a simple way to express the closeness of the Messiah’s actions to the will and power of God. Only the gods of the pagans had “sons� or offspring. “It should be noted that Paul never called Jesus ‘God.’ He called him the ‘Son of God’ in its Jewish sense. He certainly did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself; he had simply possessed God’s ‘powers’ and ‘spirit,’ which manifested God’s activity on earth and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine essence.�36

Also it needs to be kept in mind, although I mentioned it earlier, Jesus never claimed that his divine powers were his alone or special to him. On many occasions he promised his followers that if they had faith they could exercise these same powers. “By faith, of course, he did not mean adopting the correct theology but cultivating an inner attitude of surrender and openness to God.�37 . . . . (p. 161)

35 Armstrong, History of God, p. 89.
36 Armstrong, History of God, p. 83.
37 Armstrong, History of God, p. 82.

. . . . That’s why Jesus could say repeatedly, “Greater things than I do will you do.� (p. 162) - (Composer adds: John 14:12 KJV Story book)

(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

&

There is no indication in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a person before his conception. The very opposite was taught: The Messiah would expressly not be God, but a unique, final "prophet like Moses," coming into being from a family in Israel (see Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22; 7:37) - " It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and Malachi 3:1 prevented this " (Charles C. Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter).

&

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the God head. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head. [The Triune God , by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit]. (Source: Beliefnet forum: #post364701 (Post#151))

&

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

What those earliest and original believers ' did do with confidence and certainty ', was preach a Gospel completely devoid of any ' trinitarian formulation ' and had that formulation been presented, it was discarded and rejected as spurious; as the facts presented above unambiguously & easily prove had that been the case! '.

[ThatGirlAgain]

This is really a debate topic and perhaps should go on one of those forums. In fact I beleive it is there already.

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this.

.

[Composer]

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

So you speak for all catholics then?

Upon whose authority?

Are there other catholic answers besides yours?

If yes please provide examples and their source?

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course O:)

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this. ;)

.

1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)



2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

More so -

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).

See also:

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

See also:

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).

Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.


3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:

The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.

The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:

Acts 2:38.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16.

For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 10:48.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5.

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 22:16.

And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].



4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".

In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.

"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.

1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.

Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.

"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated? (Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.

[Composer]

ThatGirlAgain wrote on another Thread: -

Although no longer a Catholic, my religious education is recent and comprehensive and I believe I know the religion very well. The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine that Mary had no original sin, being already redeemed at the moment of conception, is in fact an Article of Faith.

(Source: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =30#400029)

So, ThatGirlAgain, as an admitted article of Faith you must have sworn your belief in its accuracy?

However now you say you reject catholicism and now reject all that you stood for as a devout catholic and preached before as a (in fact) pretend devout catholic. LOL!

Can we have examples of your previous Posts and teachings when you were a devout catholic showing your entusiasm for catholicism, but now we see you reject those beliefs and teachings for new ones? LOL!

What prayers & holy-spirit convinced you that catholicism was just right for you?

What prayers & holy-spirit then convinced you that you were wrong and misguided by your earlier prayers to a holy-spirit?

Do you now pray to another holy-spirit i.e. a non-catholic one? LOL!

[ThatGirlAgain]

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

So you speak for all catholics then?

Upon whose authority?

Are there other catholic answers besides yours?

If yes please provide examples and their source?

12 years of Catholic school talking here.

Also the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia

Any Catholics around have a different take on what I have said?

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this.

.

1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)

Too bad the Bishop of Woolwich is not a Catholic. Catholic dotinre, a mandatory article of faith BTW, is that Jesus is True God and True man.

[
2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

More so -

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).

See also:

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

See also:

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).

Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.


3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:

The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.

The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:

Acts 2:38.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16.

For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 10:48.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5.

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 22:16.

And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].



4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".

In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.

"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.

1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.

Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.

"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated? (Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.

For the Catholic sources you cited above. Been there. Done that. Did you miss it? What the earliest Christians were aware of is irrelevant. Catholics do not do sola scriptura. Things can be figured out later.

For the non-Catholic sources, who cares? This thread is about why Catholics believe what they believe. As far as Jesus taking part in a charade, that might get you burned at the stake in earlier days.

If you want to debate Christology in general – as you appear to be doing – move this to a debate forum and let’s get paid in tokens. As well as have a wider range of debate material.

In any case, I am beginning my weekend chore cycle and will not be back until sometime next week when work and school allow. It is my long standing habit not to post here on weekends.

[ThatGirlAgain]

ThatGirlAgain wrote on another Thread: -

Although no longer a Catholic, my religious education is recent and comprehensive and I believe I know the religion very well. The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine that Mary had no original sin, being already redeemed at the moment of conception, is in fact an Article of Faith.

(Source: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =30#400029)

So, ThatGirlAgain, as an admitted article of Faith you must have sworn your belief in its accuracy?

However now you say you reject catholicism and now reject all that you stood for as a devout catholic and preached before as a (in fact) pretend devout catholic. LOL!

Can we have examples of your previous Posts and teachings when you were a devout catholic showing your entusiasm for catholicism, but now we see you reject those beliefs and teachings for new ones? LOL!

What prayers & holy-spirit convinced you that catholicism was just right for you?

What prayers & holy-spirit then convinced you that you were wrong and misguided by your earlier prayers to a holy-spirit?

Do you now pray to another holy-spirit i.e. a non-catholic one? LOL!

I never swore anything. Catholics get handed what to believe and that is it. You are Catholic with all its implied obligations from the moment of (infant) Baptism.

How did I become non-Catholic? By reading the Bible and seeing the highly interesting way in which the story was built over time and how that fit into historical context. Clearly not compatible with the inerrant word of God business. I was heavily into the sciences before that so I already had a different worldview in my head. This was all before High School BTW.

While we are on the subject, what is your background?. Were you ever Christian? What happened? if not, where did your knowledge of Christianity come from? Did you have an opinion about Christianity before you started reading about it, or whatever? Did that opinion ever change?

[Composer]

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

So you speak for all catholics then?

Upon whose authority?

Are there other catholic answers besides yours?

If yes please provide examples and their source?

12 years of Catholic school talking here. ;)

i) So your praying to your catholic holy-spirit and your numerous catholic prayers took 12 years to let you know it was a sham of a religion? LOL!

Why did you believe the catholic holy-spirit for 12 years and then accept it had misguided you all that time OR was it another holy-spirit that convinced you to reject the catholic one you used for 12 years?

ii) As you rejected catholicism your response(s) as to what you claim catholics believe is merely a personal response based upon the catholic teachings you rejected as truth? LOL!

iii) Thank you for giving us your personal interpretation of what a genuine catholic might actually believe?

Also the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia

Any Catholics around have a different take on what I have said?

They appear to be incapable of personally answering for themselves so far!

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course O:)

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this. ;)

.

1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)

Too bad the Bishop of Woolwich is not a Catholic.

So you personally disagree with the Bishop of Woolwich's statement of what church people believe and also maintain catholics do not hold such similar beliefs as he stated?

What do you disagree with?

We will have to also wait for a genuine catholic to emerge to discover what they allegedly disagree with concerning the former Bishop of Woolwich's statement regarding many church goers!

Catholic dotinre, a mandatory article of faith BTW, is that Jesus is True God and True man.

Yes, but typically catholics have a well recorded history of instilling fear, literal torture and various evil forms of coersion, murder and death against those that won't willingly accept their ' trinitarian god of love '. LOL!

2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

More so -

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).

See also:

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

See also:

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).

Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.


3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:

The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.

The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:

Acts 2:38.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16.

For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 10:48.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5.

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 22:16.

And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].



4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".

In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.

"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.

1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.

Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.

"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated? (Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.

For the Catholic sources you cited above. Been there. Done that. Did you miss it?

I didn't miss your failed arguments then but you may repeat them or try again now as you will?

What the earliest Christians were aware of is irrelevant.

Yes I have no doubt Cults like yours you rejected after 12 years of preaching it concoct what they will in blatant disregard for what the Original beliefs were! LOL!

Catholics do not do sola scriptura. Things can be figured out later.

Meanwhile the Original believers didn't preach what catholics do now and you rejected also!

For the non-Catholic sources, who cares? This thread is about why Catholics believe what they believe. As far as Jesus taking part in a charade, that might get you burned at the stake in earlier days. :lol:

You rejected what they believe, so you make a pitiful and dishonest defender for them and a fool of yourself at the same time!

If you want to debate Christology in general – as you appear to be doing – move this to a debate forum and let’s get paid in tokens. As well as have a wider range of debate material.

I require NO payments by tokens, for I know my teachings are sound and successful at busting ALL religions and Cults like the catholic one you discarded. You obviously relish payment in tokens for your contributions (as if the bearer of most tokens is the legitimate winner. It only takes more Story book proponents to claim they don't accept my Truths for the tally to appear as if they were correct by weight of numbers?), and your comment sadly portrays a residual selfish attitude for the greedy lusts ALL self acclaimed christians manifest, that they ALL require and expect divine rewards for their selfish efforts!

In any case, I am beginning my weekend chore cycle and will not be back until sometime next week when work and school allow. It is my long standing habit not to post here on weekends.

At your earliest convenience is fine IF you wish to add anything more in support of the religion you rejected after 12 years (apparently?) OR other Topics!

You failed also to present Links to your writings in support of catholicism, trinitarianism, holy-spirit guidance, power of prayer etc. etc that you made during your 12 years with them? Or was that all a sham you are ashamed of now?

[S-word]

This is really a debate topic and perhaps should go on one of those forums. In fact I beleive it is there already.

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this.

.

Only one name by which we can be redeemed; is definately not the belief of the church of Constantine.

THE LAST MARIAN DOGMA
The Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate
The Prophecies Revealed by the Lady of All Nations

To read this, is almost enough to make a true believer in Jesus, who was given by our Lord God and saviour, his Holy Name, "I AM WHO IAM," and who is the only source through whom salvation can be gained, "Throw up."

"I am who I am
May I never lose sight
Of the fact that I am
Who I am day and night
I'm not who I was
Nor who I will be
For "WHO I AM,"
Is the name that
My god gave to me...... By S-word.

The only name by which we can be saved.

And so my friend, come soar with me
To the outer limits of reality
This universe, though wide it seems
Is but the shadow of our dreams
We are nought but knowledge in these tents
Refined through pain and punishment
We're the hive of man and neath His rod
We are one, we're the Son of God
The past, the present, the future is He
He was, He is, and He will be
And heaven is but a point in time
To where the spirit in man must climb
Eventually when He's there at last
And stands and gazes on His past
And takes the throne prepared in heaven
Then all His past will be forgiven.
I am who I am, the die is cast
For I was created by my past
And we who we are this very day
Determines His future in every way
If my past were changed, then who would I be?
One thing is certain, I wouldn't be me......... By S-word.

Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so they may be one, just as you and I are one. To deny "WHO I AM" and obey the commands of one who is not "WHO I AM," is to sin.

So get behind me you charlatan priests, and you shams
For I am true to my God, to My God, "WHO I AM.".............By S-word.

Enoch at the age of 365, the number of days in a calendar year, which is the age of the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, is the only exception of all mankind to be taken to God at the ends of the heavens see Genesis 5: 23; and the only man to have been translated in order to never experience death, See Hebrew 11: 5; (The only man to have received the lot of eternal life) and "No man has ascended to heaven except, (Except who?) except He who came down, even "The Son of Man," who "IS" In heaven."

Jesus was filled with the spirit, (The words, the wisdom, the knowledge, the insight) of the Son of Man who "IS" in heaven, from where, when the reguired number of Jew and Gentiles, who are to take the thrones that have been prepared for them, are gathered to the glorious body of the promised Messiah "Elijah," who was carried up to stand before Enoch into all time, as Enoch was carried up where he was translated from a corruptible mortal body, into a glorious incorruptible body of brilliant and blinding light, where, clothed and girded with fire, he ws to serve God before the body of Adam, into all eternity, and Elijah has been in the valley of man for three days, or three periods of one thousand years.

From The Book of Enoch the Prophet, chapter 108: 2; And now I will summons the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of the Light and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh, were not recompensed with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shinning light those who have loved my Holy Name (Who I Am) and I will seat each one on the throne of his honour. And they shall be resplendent for times without number.�

It is then that the spirit of the only begotten prophet of the Most High, Enoch who in the days of Jesus, would have been in the valley of man for three days, will descend and enter the body of Jesus the cousin of John, who is Elijah in ascent, where the Lord shall be treated with outrage and hung upon a tree and when the veil of that temple is torn, the spirit of God shall be poured forth as fire on all the ancestors of those who are united with the feiry prophet "Elijah" who, will rule for the sabbath, The Day of the Lord, the seventh period of one thousand years, and then comes the end, when the rib of Adam shall be returned to the body of the great Simulacrum, from which it was taken.

“Eli� the Father and “Jah� the Son
Reveal that Jesus and John are one
John the lesser and Jesus the great
Oh praise the Lord who in parable spake
Revelations none could contemplate.
You have blinded their eyes that none might see
The wonderful plan revealed to me.
You have stopped their ears and they’ve never heard
The glorious story told in your word.
The door was there, but they couldn’t see
In scripture, where you hid the key.
The secrets revealed, yet still it’s hidden
For those who would turn and be forgiven.
In their sins they must die, each and everyone
Of they who reject your chosen son.......................By S-word.